Hyderabad: SIB former chief T. Prabhakar Rao, who wants to return from the US only after he gets relief from arrest in the phone-tapping case, on Friday submitted to the High Court that the state government had deliberately roped him into the case to target one political leader.
He submitted that the government had propagated fabricated information to show his involvement in the interception of phones belonging to judges, mediapersons and others.
Senior counsel T. Niranjan Reddy, appearing for Prabhakar Rao, submitted to the court that except for retrieving call data records (CDR) of one person belonging to the judiciary, nothing was done and there was no chance of interception of phones without getting permission from the review committee which comprised the principal secretary, home, and others.
Senior counsel also explained that the certain circumstances had arisen to examine the CDR of a person belonging to judiciary and taht permission had been taken to obtain this data.
Niranjan Reddy also argued that no statutory notices had been issued to Prabhakar Rao by the investigation agency and nor had proclamation notices been issued. But, the state government and investigation team were propagating that the accused had absconded.
Niranjan Reddy submitted that the investigation team had examined only staff belonging to the cadre of constables, RSI and middle-range officers. It had not examined DIGs, IGs, SPs and other officers who were part of the intelligence wing while Prabhakar Rao was in the SIB, nor questioned members of the review committee.
Senior counsel also brought to the notice of the court that the lookout circular was issued against Prabhakar Rao before he was made accused in the crime on April 29, 2024.
Senior counsel Siddarth Luthra, appearing for the state government, argued that Prabhakar Rao’s true colours were coming out during the investigation.
Pointing to the destruction of call records and breakage of hard disks and pen drives, immediately after the Assembly elections results were declared, senior counsel Luthra asked how could Prabhakar Rao have directed his officials to destroy the data in December, whereas the procedure allows the process only once in six months, in January and July. Opposing Prabhakar Rao’s contention that he went to US for treatment of cancer,
Senior counsel Luthra asked how could a person suffering from cancer hold the SIB chief’s post till the first week of December 2023, and then require urgent treatment only when there was a change of government. Prabhakar Rao deliberately fled abroad, Luthra contended.
The court adjourned the hearing to April 29, on the request of senior counsel Luthra for more time to submit his arguments on behalf of the state government.
